Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator

[Jeff Garzik]

Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Divy Le Ray wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 August 2008 03:02:46 pm David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Divy Le Ray <divy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:57:09 -0700
> > >
> > > > In any case, such a stateless solution is not yet designed, whereas
> > > > accelerated iSCSI is available now, from us and other companies.
> > > So, WHAT?!
> > >
> > > There are TOE pieces of crap out there too.
> >
> > Well, there is demand for accerated iscsi out there, which is the 
> > driving reason of our driver submission. 
>
> I'm, as an iSCSI target developer, strongly voting for hardware iSCSI 
> offload. Having possibility of the direct data placement is a *HUGE* 
> performance gain.

Well, two responses here:

* no one is arguing against hardware iSCSI offload.  Rather, it is a 
problem with a specific implementation, one that falsely assumes two 
independent TCP stacks can co-exist peacefully on the same IP address 
and MAC.

* direct data placement is possible without offloading the entire TCP 
stack onto a firmware/chip.

There is plenty of room for hardware iSCSI offload...

	Jeff


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/